Menachot 89a

וְלֶיעְבֵּד זָהָב כֹּל דְּהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

and consequently, let the mouth of the lamps be fashioned from gold of any quality, not necessarily from pure gold. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that even the mouth of the lamps must be fashioned from pure gold.

חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן לְתוֹדָה.

§ The mishna teaches: A half- log of oil was used to measure oil for the thanks offering. The thanks offering was accompanied by four different types of loaves; three types were unleavened and one was leavened, as the verse states: “If he offers it for a thanks offering, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanks offering: Unleavened loaves mixed with oil; and unleavened wafers spread with oil; and poached fine flour, loaves mixed with oil. With loaves of leavened bread he shall present his offering, with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for a thanks offering” (Leviticus 7:12–13).

תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים? אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ אֶחָד, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת לְלוֹג. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁכָּתַב ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״, הָוֵי רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי, וְאֵין רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט – מִיעֲטוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַחֲצִי לוֹג.

It is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Akiva says: Why must the verse state: “With oil,” “with oil,” writing it twice; why was the first time not sufficient? Because were the term “with oil” stated only once, I would have said that, with regard to the amount of oil required, the meal offerings that accompany the thanks offerings are like all other meal offerings to the extent that they require one log of oil. Now that the verse wrote “with oil,” “with oil,” it constitutes one amplification following another amplification, and the principle is that one amplification following another amplification serves only to restrict the extent of the halakha . Accordingly, in this case the verse restricted the amount of oil used in the three types of unleavened meal offerings to a half- log for all of them together.

רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי?! חַד רִיבּוּי הוּא.

The Gemara interjects the citation of the baraita to ask: Is this a case of one amplification following another amplification? It would appear that there is only one amplification, as according to the baraita the first mention of the term “with oil” is necessary to teach the basic requirement that the meal offerings of the thanks offering require oil, like other meal offerings. How then can it be considered an amplification?

אֶלָּא, אִילּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ כׇּל עִיקָּר, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכׇל הַמְּנָחוֹת לְלוֹג. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״, הָוֵי רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי, וְאֵין רִיבּוּי אַחַר רִיבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט, מִיעֲטוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַחֲצִי לוֹג.

Rather, Rabbi Akiva’s statement should be emended, as follows: Were the term “with oil,” not written at all, I would still have said that the thanks offering meal offerings are like all other meal offerings to the extent that they require one log of oil. Now that the verse wrote “with oil,” “with oil,” it constitutes one amplification following another amplification, and the principle is that one amplification following another amplification serves only to restrict the extent of the halakha . Accordingly, in this case the verse restricted the amount of oil used in the three types of unleavened meal offerings to a half- log for all three together.

יָכוֹל יְהֵא חֲצִי לוֹג זֶה מִתְחַלֵּק לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת מִינִין, לַחַלּוֹת וְלָרְקִיקִין וְלָרְבִיכָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ בָּרְבִיכָה, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, רִיבָּה שֶׁמֶן לָרְבִיכָה. הָא כֵּיצַד? מֵבִיא חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן וְחוֹצֵיהוּ [חֶצְיוֹ] לַחַלּוֹת וְלָרְקִיקִין, וְחֶצְיוֹ לָרְבִיכָה.

The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita : Once it has been established that the meal offerings require only a half- log of oil, one might have thought that this half- log should be equally divided between the three types of unleavened meal offerings, i.e., one-sixth of a log for the loaves, one-sixth for the wafers, and one-sixth for the poached loaves. When the verse states: “With oil,” with regard to the poached loaves, that is seemingly superfluous, as there is no need for the verse to state the requirement to use part of the half- log of oil, being that this requirement has already been established. It must therefore serve to amplify the amount of oil used for a poached loaf as opposed to the other two types. How so? One brings a half- log of oil and divides it equally into two. Half of it is further divided and used both for the ten regular loaves and for the ten wafers, and the other half of it is used entirely for the ten poached loaves.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: עֲקִיבָא, אִם אַתָּה מְרַבֶּה כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ ״בַּשֶּׁמֶן״ – אֵינִי שׁוֹמֵעַ לָךְ, אֶלָּא חֲצִי לוֹג שֶׁמֶן לְתוֹדָה, וּרְבִיעִית שֶׁמֶן לְנָזִיר, וְאַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם שֶׁבֵּין נִדָּה לְנִדָּה – הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to Rabbi Akiva: Akiva, even if you were to amplify halakhot the entire day from the terms “with oil,” “with oil,” I would not listen to you and accept your claims. Rather, the halakha that a half- log of oil is required for the thanks offering, and similarly, the halakha that a quarter- log of oil is required for the loaves of a nazirite, and the halakha that a woman who experiences an emission of blood during the eleven days that are between one seven-day period of menstruation and the next period of menstruation is a zava , each of these is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai; they are not derived from verses.

בְּלוֹג הָיָה מוֹדֵד.

§ The mishna states that with the vessel of one log one would measure the oil for all the standard meal offerings. It then cites a dispute between the Rabbis, who hold that one log of oil is required for each tenth of an ephah of flour used, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who holds that each meal offering, irrespective of its size, requires only one log of oil.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּמְצוֹרָע עָנִי כְּתִיב ״עִשָּׂרוֹן... בָּלוּל... וְלֹג״, לִימֵּד עַל עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁטָּעוּן לוֹג, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.

The Sages taught in a baraita : With regard to a poor leper, who cannot afford the standard offerings that are required as part of the purification process and is instead required to bring one lamb as a guilt offering and a tenth of an ephah of flour as a meal offering, it is written: “And a tenth - part of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil” (Leviticus 14:21). The verse juxtaposes the need for a log of oil with the fact the offering is made of a tenth of an ephah of flour. Accordingly, it teaches about each tenth of an ephah of flour that it requires one log of oil; this is the statement of the Rabbis.

רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עֶשְׂרוֹנִים אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא לוּגָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמִנְחָה וְלֹג שֶׁמֶן״.

Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer say: Each meal offering, irrespective of its size, and even a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah of flour, requires only its single log of oil, as it is stated with regard to offering of a leper: “And a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil.” The juxtaposition of “a meal offering” with “a log of oil” teaches a principle for all meal offerings: Each offering requires only one log of oil.

וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, הַאי ״עִשָּׂרוֹן בָּלוּל וְלֹג״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? הָהוּא לְגוּפֵיהּ, דְּקָא אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: לַיְיתֵי חַד עִשָּׂרוֹן.

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, what do they do with this verse: “And a tenth - part of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering and a log of oil,” which links the need for a log of oil with the fact the offering is made of a tenth of an ephah of flour? The Gemara explains: That verse is required to teach the matter itself, as the Merciful One states: Let a poor leper bring an offering of just a tenth of an ephah of flour. Accordingly, it cannot be used to teach a principle about meal offerings.

וְאִידָּךְ, לְגוּפֵיהּ לָא צְרִיךְ, מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי מְצוֹרָע שְׁלֹשָׁה קׇרְבָּנוֹת וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, הָכָא דְּחַד קׇרְבָּן – חַד עִשָּׂרוֹן.

The Gemara asks: And as for the other, i.e., the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim? They maintain that it is not necessary to teach the matter itself, as from the fact that the Merciful One revealed with regard to a leper who is not poor that he must bring three animal offerings and a meal offering of three-tenths of an ephah as part of his purification process, it may be inferred that here, with regard to a poor leper, who brings only one offering, that he similarly brings a meal offering of only a tenth of an ephah. Accordingly, the fact that the verse mentions that his offering is only a tenth of an ephah is superfluous and can teach a principle for all meal offerings.

וְאִידַּךְ – אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְחָס רַחֲמָנָא עֲלֵיהּ לְאֵתוֹיֵי בְּדַלּוּת, אֵימָא לָא לִיבְעֵי (מנה) [מִנְחָה] כְּלָל. וְאִידַּךְ – לִגְמָרֵי לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן.

The Gemara continues to ask: And as for the other, Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer, how would they respond to this claim? They maintain that it was necessary for the verse to state the size of his meal offering, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One spared the money of the poor leper by allowing him to bring an offering affordable in poverty, one might say that the Merciful One does not require from him to bring any meal offering at all. The Gemara asks: And as for the other, the Rabbis, how would they respond to this? They claim that we do not find that the Torah entirely exempts a poor person from the offerings of the purification process, only that it provides a less expensive way to complete that process.

וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״לְמִנְחָה וְלֹג שֶׁמֶן״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? הָהוּא לַמִּתְנַדֵּב מִנְחָה, שֶׁלֹּא יִפְחוֹת מִדָּבָר הַטָּעוּן לוֹג, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? עִשָּׂרוֹן. וְאִידַּךְ, תַּרְתֵּי שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with the juxtaposition in the end of this verse: “For a meal offering and a log of oil,” from which Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer derive the principle that each meal offering requires only one log of oil? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis maintain that the juxtaposition teaches about one who donates a meal offering, without specifying its size, that he should not bring less than an amount of flour that requires one log . And what is this amount? A tenth of an ephah. The Gemara asks: And as for the other, Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Eliezer, from where do they derive that halakha , as they maintain the verse teaches the principle for all meal offerings? The Gemara explains: They maintain that two halakhot can be derived from this verse.

שִׁשָּׁה לַפָּר, אַרְבָּעָה לָאַיִל, שְׁלֹשָׁה לַכֶּבֶשׂ. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם חֲצִי הַהִין יִהְיֶה לַפָּר״.

§ The mishna lists the quantities of oil and wine that were required for the meal offerings and libations that accompanied the sacrifice of an animal. Six log , i.e., one-half of a hin , for those of a bull; and four log , i.e., one-third of a hin , for those of a ram; and three log , i.e., one-quarter of a hin , for those of a lamb. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive these quantities? We derive them from a verse, as it is written: “And their libations shall be one-half of a hin of wine for a bull, and one-third of a hin for the ram, and one-quarter of a hin for a lamb” (Numbers 28:14).

הִין – תְּרֵיסַר לוּגֵּי הָוַיִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״שֶׁמֶן זַיִת הִין״, וּכְתִיב: ״שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה זֶה לִי לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם״, זֶה בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא תְּרֵיסַר הָוַיִין.

The Gemara elaborates: Now, one hin is twelve log , as it is written: “And of olive oil a hin ” (Exodus 30:24), and it is written afterward in the same verse: “Sacred anointing oil, this [ zeh ] shall be for Me, throughout your generations.” The numerical value [ gimatriyya ] of zeh is twelve. Once it is established that one hin is twelve log , it is possible to calculate how may log are in one-half, one-third, and one-quarter of a hin .

שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמֶחֱצָה לַמְּנוֹרָה, חֲצִי לוֹג לְכׇל נֵר. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״ – תֵּן לָהּ מִדָּתָהּ שֶׁתְּהֵא דּוֹלֶקֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״ – אֵין לְךָ עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד. וְשִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים חֲצִי לוֹג מֵאוּרְתָּא וְעַד צַפְרָא.

§ The mishna teaches: Three and a half log of oil were required for the Candelabrum, as there were seven lamps and a half- log was required for each lamp. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita : The verse states with regard to the Candelabrum: “Aaron and his sons shall arrange it from evening to morning, before the Lord” (Exodus 27:21). This indicates that you shall put into each lamp its required quantity of oil so that it will continue burning from evening until morning. Alternatively, the phrase “from evening to morning” indicates that the mitzva is fulfilled throughout the night, and you have no other rite that is valid from evening until morning except for this one alone. And the Sages calculated that a half- log of oil for each lamp is necessary to ensure that they continue burning from evening until morning.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה שִׁיעֲרוּ, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה שִׁיעֲרוּ.

How did the Sages reach the conclusion that a half- log of oil is needed? There are those who say that the Sages calculated it by initially using a large quantity of oil, more than necessary to burn throughout the night, and then decreasing the quantity by a small amount each night until they saw that at the end of the night there was no oil remaining. And there are those who say that they calculated it by initially using a small quantity of oil and then increasing the quantity each night until they saw that the quantity was sufficient to allow the lamps to burn throughout the night.

מַאן דְּאָמַר מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה שִׁיעֲרוּ – הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִמַּעְלָה לְמַטָּה שִׁיעֲרוּ – אֵין עֲנִיּוּת בִּמְקוֹם עֲשִׁירוּת.

The Gemara elaborates: The one who said that they calculated it by increasing the quantity each night holds that they did so in accordance with the principle that the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people, so the Sages wished to minimize the financial cost of their experimentation. And the one who said that they calculated it by decreasing the quantity each night holds that in the Temple one’s actions should not be motivated by a concern for the financial cost, as in a place of wealth there is no poverty.

מַתְנִי׳ מְעָרְבִין נִסְכֵי פָרִים בְּנִסְכֵי אֵילִים, נִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים, שֶׁל יָחִיד בְּשֶׁל צִיבּוּר,

MISHNA: Many animal offerings are brought together with a meal offering and a wine libation. These additions are collectively referred to as libations. One may mix together the libations of bulls with the libations of rams; the meal offerings may be mixed as they both share the same ratio of flour to oil, i.e., two log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour. Likewise, one may mix together the libations of lambs with the libations of other lambs, as the meal offerings both share the same ratio of three log of oil for each tenth of an ephah of flour. And one may mix together the libations of the offering of an individual with those of a communal offering.